Author
Topic: Evolution (Read 2972 times)

As we progress in our search for knowledge and our roots we find that Darwin had the best thoughts on it but over time we find that Darwin's theory had or has holes in it. the lack of gradualism in the fossil record shows that Darwin was wrong but the Punctuated Equilibria was developed to explain a pervasive and intriguing evolutionary pattern: most species change little if at all after they first appear in the fossil record. We still have many question about how we can to be like how does the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

We as humans are a unique creatures, we sleep but why do we sleep, we dream, but why do we dream, then one of the biggest things that set us apart from animal is altruism. Unlike animals, if we see a stray human that needs help we will help them even if they are not related to us, whereas animal, unless they are related, will not help anther animal unless they are hungry. If we are altruistic by nature, but if we are, most agree it doesn't make evolutionary sense.

To assume that there is not a life after death whether or not a religious one, how can one say that there is not. We have police stations that sometimes use psychic to find a missing or dead persons. If our consciousness, spirit or what ever you choose to call it, ends at death is absurd. We know little about the origins of life and how a cell was planted to start evolution, how could one say that there is no afterlife.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 12:41:39 PM by Babdah »

Logged

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

As we progress in our search for knowledge and our roots we find that Darwin had the best thoughts on it but over time we find that Darwin's theory had or has holes in it.

So did Newton's. That doesn't mean he was wrong. Rather, his ideas were incomplete.

Quote

We still have many question about how we can to be like how does the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

Yes, we certainly do. And scientists are working on it.

There's an excellent television series here in America called "Nova", which frequently does episodes about the research that scientists are doing in areas like this. I don't know whether you can get it where you are, but I highly recommend it. It will explain a lot to you.

Quote

We as humans are a unique creatures, we sleep but why do we sleep, we dream, but why do we dream

It is pretty lame that we have to spend approximately one-third of our lives unconscious. In my view, this is arguably the strongest argument against Intelligent Design that one can make.

Quote

then one of the biggest things that set us apart from animal is altruism.

This is not true, at least not for all animals. Some animals show a surprising amount of empathy. My ex was involved in rescuing feral cats, for example, and she reports that she frequently saw cases when a cat in a feral colony was injured and unable to provide for itself, so other cats in the colony would bring the injured cat food.

Quote

To assume that there is not a life after death whether or not a religious one, how can one say that there is not.

We know enough about chemistry and neurophysiology (among other fields) to know that there is almost no possibility that consciousness continues after death. I'd even say no possibility at all, if it didn't sound dogmatic.

Quote

We have police stations that sometimes use psychic to find a missing or dead persons.

And it has never been proven that psychic powers even exist. In fact, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing offer to anyone who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal effect under controlled conditions: a one million dollar prize. It has never been claimed and probably never will be.

Quote

We know little about the origins of life and how a cell was planted to start evolution, how could one say that there is no afterlife.

The one question has nothing to do with the other one. The one that always got me about Christianity, though, was this: if Yahweh created man to live forever, why did he bother making consciousness something separate from the body that would survive its death?

The one that always got me about Christianity, though, was this: if Yahweh created man to live forever, why did he bother making consciousness something separate from the body that would survive its death?

Holy shit! That never occurred to me before. That's awesome dude! If the Adam and Eve characters were never supposed to experience death, then obviously the god character never expected them to ever end up in heaven. And that's totally antithetical to the whole soul thing. Yow!

The one that always got me about Christianity, though, was this: if Yahweh created man to live forever, why did he bother making consciousness something separate from the body that would survive its death?

Holy shit! That never occurred to me before. That's awesome dude! If the Adam and Eve characters were never supposed to experience death, then obviously the god character never expected them to ever end up in heaven. And that's totally antithetical to the whole soul thing. Yow!

I've got to try this on some Christians. I am totally stealing this.

Glad to be of service. Just remember me the next time you're in the recording studio.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Some animals show a surprising amount of empathy. My ex was involved in rescuing feral cats, for example, and she reports that she frequently saw cases when a cat in a feral colony was injured and unable to provide for itself, so other cats in the colony would bring the injured cat food.

Yes in a colony, but would they do the same for a cat that was not in the same colony? Highly doubtful...

neurophysiology (among other fields) to know that there is almost no possibility that consciousness continues after death. I'd even say no possibility at all,

we are still mapping the brain, and still have a limited knowledge on many of the functions of it. We are still not sure were our personality lies. I would not so much as that i would think that their maybe something that exist afterlife.

most species change little if at all after they first appear in the fossil record.

Perhaps because changing to much would mean it isn't the same species any more...

Quote

We still have many question about how we can to be like how does the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

How life began is a separate question question from anything to do with evolution. Just as asking how a car key was made is completely separate to how the car itself works.

Quote

We as humans are a unique creatures, we sleep but why do we sleep, we dream, but why do we dream

Uh... both of those are things non-human animals do as well. Not helping with your claim of "unique".

Quote

, then one of the biggest things that set us apart from animal is altruism.

Also a quality possessed by non-human animals. Mammals are the most likely to have it, of course. A good example is the story of a gorilla in a zoo who tried to help a human child that had fallen into the gorilla's area.

Quote

Binti is most well known for an incident which occurred on August 16, 1996, when she was eight years old. A three-year old boy climbed the wall around her zoo enclosure and fell 18 feet onto concrete below, rendering him unconscious. Binti walked to the boy's side while helpless spectators screamed, certain the gorilla would harm the child. Another larger female gorilla approached, and Binti growled.

Binti picked up the child, cradling him with her right arm as she did her own infant, gave him a few pats on the back, and carried him 18 m (60 feet) to an access entrance, so that zoo personnel could retrieve him. Her 17-month-old baby, Koola, clutched her back throughout the incident. The boy spent four days in the hospital and recovered fully.

I actually found a second occurrence as well while looking up the above one:

Quote

[A] male gorilla named Jambo, of Jersey Zoo, protected a 5-year-old child who had fallen into his enclosure. Jambo was not trained to care for children and was raised in captivity by his own gorilla mother, so that his actions may have involved an instinctive sense that the child needed his help.

Quote

We have police stations that sometimes use psychic to find a missing or dead persons.

Hahahahahaahahaaaaa.... ha....

Hoo boy; for the record, their success rate when it comes to psychics is pathetically low. The best chance a psychic has is guessing the most common occurrence given the currently known situation. This tactic, however, has backfired horribly. One of the better known psychics has been... *ahem*... less than successful.

About Sylvia Browne:

Quote

A detailed three-year study of her predictions about missing persons and murder cases, by Ryan Shaffer and Agatha Jadwiszczok for the Skeptical Inquirer, has found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct, "Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case." The study's authors collected Browne's televised statements about 115 cases and compared them with newspaper reports that are believed to be factual. They found that in 25 cases where the actual outcome is known, she was completely wrong in every one; and in the rest, where the final outcome is unknown, her predictions could not be substantiated. The study indicates that the media outlets that repeatedly promote Browne's work have no visible concern about whether she is untrustworthy or harms people.

Yes, that is just one of the many frauds... police go to them to sooth the (gullible) family of the victim as a way to assure them they are doing everything in their power. wonderful what they put taxpayer money towards, isn't it?

« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 01:30:50 PM by Avatar Of Belial »

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Yes in a colony, but would they do the same for a cat that was not in the same colony? Highly doubtful...

How many humans would have taken the time to feed someone who was injured and starving they didn't know, through most of history? Even today, how many people actually stop when they see a broken-down car on the highway, or someone with one of those "will work for food" signs? Humans are not naturally altruistic, it's a learned trait.

Quote from: Babdah

while this maybe true, there are still no one standing theory that answers this question.

The fact that there isn't a conclusive theory isn't grounds to attribute it to some designer, or God.

Quote from: Babdah

we are still mapping the brain, and still have a limited knowledge on many of the functions of it. We are still not sure were our personality lies. I would not so much as that i would think that their maybe something that exist afterlife.

It's not as if the atoms and molecules of our body stop existing, you know. They remain, even after life. But the fact that we don't understand all the functions of the brain isn't grounds to assume that the mind passes on to some other existence after death.

Also a quality possessed by non-human animals. Mammals are the most likely to have it, of course. A good example is the story of a gorilla in a zoo who tried to help a human child that had fallen into the gorilla's area.

Quote

Binti is most well known for an incident which occurred on August 16, 1996, when she was eight years old. A three-year old boy climbed the wall around her zoo enclosure and fell 18 feet onto concrete below, rendering him unconscious. Binti walked to the boy's side while helpless spectators screamed, certain the gorilla would harm the child. Another larger female gorilla approached, and Binti growled.

Binti picked up the child, cradling him with her right arm as she did her own infant, gave him a few pats on the back, and carried him 18 m (60 feet) to an access entrance, so that zoo personnel could retrieve him. Her 17-month-old baby, Koola, clutched her back throughout the incident. The boy spent four days in the hospital and recovered fully.

I actually found a second occurrence as well while looking up the above one:

Quote

[A] male gorilla named Jambo, of Jersey Zoo, protected a 5-year-old child who had fallen into his enclosure. Jambo was not trained to care for children and was raised in captivity by his own gorilla mother, so that his actions may have involved an instinctive sense that the child needed his help.

See, now if they are in the wild do you thin that they would of done that? I dont think that they would of. big difference.

How life began is a separate question question from anything to do with evolution. Just as asking how a car key was made is completely separate to how the car itself works.

Not really, If we knew how life began then we would understand how evolution worked in part to create us.

Quote

Uh... both of those are things non-human animals do as well. Not helping with your claim of "unique".

True, we have more detailed dreams rather then a cat that dreams about catching a meal or being loved by his owner.

[quote ]Hoo boy; for the record, their success rate when it comes to psychics is pathetically low. The best chance a psychic has is guessing the most common occurrence given the currently known situation. This tactic, however, has backfired horribly. One of the better known psychics has been... *ahem*... less than successful.[/quote]

How many humans would have taken the time to feed someone who was injured and starving they didn't know, through most of history? Even today, how many people actually stop when they see a broken-down car on the highway, or someone with one of those "will work for food" signs? Humans are not naturally altruistic, it's a learned trait.

In the 1800 there are many stories that travelers stop at strangers house were the stranger feed them and let them sleep. What is adoption? There people who can have kids on there own but still they adopt.

It's not as if the atoms and molecules of our body stop existing, you know. They remain, even after life. But the fact that we don't understand all the functions of the brain isn't grounds to assume that the mind passes on to some other existence after death.

The conscience might, if it is the life blood of who we are, why couldn't we live on in another realm outside what we live today.

Logged

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

In the 1800 there are many stories that travelers stop at strangers house were the stranger feed them and let them sleep. What is adoption? There people who can have kids on there own but still they adopt.

How many thousands of years of civilization have humans had? How much of human history consisted largely of killing anyone who wasn't part of the tribe?

Quote from: Babdah

Your absolutely right, but that is not what i am doing, there is not conclusive theory for afterlife so should we dismiss it?

There isn't a theory for an afterlife at all, not in a scientific sense. There's no evidence, and evidence is necessary to come up with even a partial theory. Otherwise it's speculation.

The conscience might, if it is the life blood of who we are, why couldn't we live on in another realm outside what we live today.

There's no evidence for the consciousness persisting past death, and there's no evidence that anything leaves the body after death. Therefore, there's no support for such a speculation. It doesn't hurt to make it, but you can't give it much or any credence.

What evidence is there for actual, documented psychic power? Nearly every case investigated turns out to be a fraudulent con artist using simple stage magic, slight of hand or cold reading trickery. There are a few honest people who actually thought they had such powers but they are never able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So, what does that tell us? We can safely say that as far as we currently know, psychic phenomena do not exist. (Certainly they don't exist in any way we can currently measure or document.)

By the same token we can say that the afterlife, the soul, and supernatural beings do not exist. No studies have documented any of them in any conclusive way and supposed examples have turned out to be frauds.

This does not mean we should give up studying psychic phenomena; it only means we are not likely to find anything useful. Considering all the people who claim to be psychic and/or say they believe in supernatural stuff, you would think someone could have produced some real evidence by now.

Evolution, on the other hand has tons of good, documented evidence supporting it worldwide, relatively few frauds or cons involved and has proven to be useful in numerous applications in a wide variety of fields. What's not to believe?

I never said that they did not. I just said that the likelihood of it is not very common.

So now we've moved from "only humans are altruistic" to "it isn't very common outside of humans". I wasn't trying to argue that it was common in other animals, but we can show that certain species of animals besides humans have the trait of altruism (either within or outside their 'tribe'). In other words, it isn't unique to humans, and it could just as easily have gone another way - humans could have ended up lacking empathy and altruism.

Quote from: Babdah

I dont know if it did or not that is why we need to study more on the issue. I just do not see how a natural genetic engineering model is from an accident. There has to be more to it.

You're going to have to explain why you think the origins of life are a natural genetic engineering model.

Quote from: Babdah

Watching the sleep study videos, you can see what they are doing.

Is this a conclusion of scientists who have actually done the studies? If so, you will need to provide a source. If it is just your conclusion, you will need to support it better than "you can see what they are doing".

Quote from: Babdah

OK, that makes no sense, so just because they study photographs of other planets it proves nothing? It proves something, other wise they would not waste time studying it.

Photographs of other planets are evidence which serves as the basis of proof. My point about it not proving anything is that they haven't been able to find evidence that can be independently confirmed as being valid. The fact that someone studies something does not in and of itself prove anything about the subject they are studying.

What evidence is there for actual, documented psychic power? Nearly every case investigated turns out to be a fraudulent con artist using simple stage magic, slight of hand or cold reading trickery. There are a few honest people who actually thought they had such powers but they are never able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So, what does that tell us? We can safely say that as far as we currently know, psychic phenomena do not exist. (Certainly they don't exist in any way we can currently measure or document.)

Before you actually try to dismiss everything as a fraud you really should look into the actual history of it, the ganzfeld experiments. This is an interesting article.

This does not mean we should give up studying psychic phenomena; it only means we are not likely to find anything useful. Considering all the people who claim to be psychic and/or say they believe in supernatural stuff, you would think someone could have produced some real evidence by now.

Evolution, on the other hand has tons of good, documented evidence supporting it worldwide, relatively few frauds or cons involved and has proven to be useful in numerous applications in a wide variety of fields. What's not to believe?

I believe it but i think there are still somethings that still need further research

Logged

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Is this a conclusion of scientists who have actually done the studies? If so, you will need to provide a source. If it is just your conclusion, you will need to support it better than "you can see what they are doing".

Photographs of other planets are evidence which serves as the basis of proof. My point about it not proving anything is that they haven't been able to find evidence that can be independently confirmed as being valid. The fact that someone studies something does not in and of itself prove anything about the subject they are studying.

Abiogenesis has made no head way but we continue to study it, it does not mean that it is a pseudoscience it just means that we are not sure about how it began, it is the same thing with parapsychology, we just have not made any actual headway with it.

Logged

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

As we progress in our search for knowledge and our roots we find that Darwin had the best thoughts on it but over time we find that Darwin's theory had or has holes in it. the lack of gradualism in the fossil record shows that Darwin was wrong but the Punctuated Equilibria was developed to explain a pervasive and intriguing evolutionary pattern: most species change little if at all after they first appear in the fossil record. We still have many question about how we can to be like how does the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

We as humans are a unique creatures, we sleep but why do we sleep, we dream, but why do we dream, then one of the biggest things that set us apart from animal is altruism. Unlike animals, if we see a stray human that needs help we will help them even if they are not related to us, whereas animal, unless they are related, will not help anther animal unless they are hungry. If we are altruistic by nature, but if we are, most agree it doesn't make evolutionary sense.

To assume that there is not a life after death whether or not a religious one, how can one say that there is not. We have police stations that sometimes use psychic to find a missing or dead persons. If our consciousness, spirit or what ever you choose to call it, ends at death is absurd. We know little about the origins of life and how a cell was planted to start evolution, how could one say that there is no afterlife.

We are not the smartest animals on the planet.....is there a heaven for dolphins and whales? Just because you cannot understand the language of other animals does not mean it does not exist.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

What evidence is there for actual, documented psychic power? Nearly every case investigated turns out to be a fraudulent con artist using simple stage magic, slight of hand or cold reading trickery. There are a few honest people who actually thought they had such powers but they are never able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So, what does that tell us? We can safely say that as far as we currently know, psychic phenomena do not exist. (Certainly they don't exist in any way we can currently measure or document.)

Before you actually try to dismiss everything as a fraud you really should look into the actual history of it, the ganzfeld experiments. This is an interesting article.

This does not mean we should give up studying psychic phenomena; it only means we are not likely to find anything useful. Considering all the people who claim to be psychic and/or say they believe in supernatural stuff, you would think someone could have produced some real evidence by now.

Evolution, on the other hand has tons of good, documented evidence supporting it worldwide, relatively few frauds or cons involved and has proven to be useful in numerous applications in a wide variety of fields. What's not to believe?

I believe it but i think there are still somethings that still need further research

Of course there will always be a need for further research. But evolutionary theory is well-substantiated to the point where everyone accepts it (even people who say they don't ) because everyone uses the applications. Organ transplants, flu shots, new strains of crops, dog breeding and cancer treatment all rely on evolutionary theory. Does anyone refuse to get a dose of medicine or to eat an ear of sweet corn because it was developed by applying the theory of evolution?

However, there is yet to be a single documented case of any useful application of psychic power. I looked at the articles you linked. Studies are inconclusive-- James Randi's million dollar prize for anyone who can show that anyone is psychic is still safe. The fact that it is so hard to show that psychic ability even exists is suggestive.

It is not like we are refusing to accept something that is clearly evident-- like aliens visiting from outer space, or supernatural beings who intervene in human lives, it would be fascinating and possibly great fun if it was really true. But it probably isn't.

We are not the smartest animals on the planet.....is there a heaven for dolphins and whales? Just because you cannot understand the language of other animals does not mean it does not exist.

Yesterday I was on the front porch with my first two daughters[1] when along came the neighbors beagle. Hanna[2] tried to whistle at the doggie but wasn't getting it quite right so she barked at it to try to get it to come to her. Christy[3] burst out "Hanna NO! You don't know what you're saying!"

There are all manner of people who say they have experienced something telepathic, but their methodology is somewhat suspect.

A paper in press at a top psychology journal argues that the results of nine experiments conducted with more than 1000 college students provide statistically significant evidence of an ability to predict future events. Not surprisingly, the news has provoked outrage from pseudoscience debunkers and counteraccusations of closed-mindedness from those willing to consider the possibility of psychic powers. It has also rekindled a long-running debate about whether the statistical tools commonly used in psychology—and most other areas of science—too often lead researchers astray.

Do we get to know what this study was?

I can predict future events. I predict that someone will die tomorrow.

male gorilla named Jambo, of Jersey Zoo, protected a 5-year-old child who had fallen into his enclosure. Jambo was not trained to care for children and was raised in captivity by his own gorilla mother, so that his actions may have involved an instinctive sense that the child needed his help.

Quote

See, now if they are in the wild do you thin that they would of done that? I dont think that they would of. big difference.

"male gorilla named Jambo, of Jersey Zoo, protected a 5-year-old child who had fallen into his enclosure. Jambo was not trained to care for children and was raised in captivity by his own gorilla mother, so that his actions may have involved an instinctive sense that the child needed his help."

Reading makes a big difference.

Quote

Not really, If we knew how life began then we would understand how evolution worked in part to create us.

Quote

True, we have more detailed dreams rather then a cat that dreams about catching a meal or being loved by his owner.

..And how do you know cats have "less detailed dreams"? Cat expert? Catman?

A paper in press at a top psychology journal argues that the results of nine experiments conducted with more than 1000 college students provide statistically significant evidence of an ability to predict future events.

Hard to figure out a control group for that.

Criswell was a mentalist in the 1950s. "Criswell Predicts" and he wore a satin jacket with sequined stars so he could look wizardly. In sketchy memory some people remember him as a psychic. He was not. After a prediction would come true such as a plague of rats invading a city, he would tell how he arrived at the conclusion by deduction. In the case of that city, it was the completion of a bridge to a slum suburb that already had a rat problem. You can see Criswell for his part in Plan 0 from Outer Space.

Another thing to consider is the Evelyn Woods method of speed reading. It was big in the 1960s up until its debunking in 1970. I read the debunking in Psychology Today. The course cost $180 (think $500 today) and would double your reading speed with only a 10% loss in comprehension. That was based on a scientfic test. A group who had the course and one who had not both read a text and took a quiz on the content. The control group who read the old "horse and buggy"[1] way got a 90% score while the Evelyn Woods graduates got 80% right.

Then someone examined her system. Basically for all that money her course could be boiled down to one word "skim!" He made another control group using her quiz but not the text. He gave it to a group who hadn't read the text at all but took the quiz and guessed at the answers. They got 70% right. So in reality doubling the reading speed was traded off against a 50% reduction in comprehension.

It's also like I said about the Bible prophecies of cities that would be destroyed. Given the history of the Middle East almost any city there will be struck by war over the millenia.

American Indian rain dances always work because it always rains -- someday, some year.[2]

See, now if they are in the wild do you thin that they would of done that? I dont think that they would of. big difference.

Captivity alone wouldn't cause that reaction; worse, it has a greater chance of the opposite reaction. Jambo wasn't trained to care for other creatures by his handlers, and as a fully grown male gorilla - quite dangerous if he wants to be. The fact that he protected the child was proof of empathy on his part.

Also, most examples of empathy will be from captivity for two reasons:1) We'll be in a position to actually observe it. Much harder to find in nature since primary interactions will be between predator and prey (whom we can expect a lack of empathy between - after all, human hunters don't really care that the target is suffering. They just care that they got a target.)2) Less competition for survival. Since captive animals have their primary needs taken care of they would not have enough incentive to ignore their empathy. Likewise, humans stuck out in the wild with less than minimal supplies and a need to gather things will almost universally become less empathetic. What do you think the cause of early tribal warfare was? It wasn't a lack of empathy, but a need to overcome it to survive.

Not really, If we knew how life began then we would understand how evolution worked in part to create us.

Incorrect. It doesn't matter how life began; all that early life needs is DNA (or something that can become DNA) and a basic cellular form. From there, the chemical reactions with the DNA (or DNA-alike) within the cell will cause reproduction and evolution.

Evolution can work with abiogenesis or god-magic. Also, the initial life form would not have evolved from anything (because there was nothing to evolve from). Therefore evolution is a seperate subject from abiogenesis.

True, we have more detailed dreams rather then a cat that dreams about catching a meal or being loved by his owner.

And how would you know the detail of a cat's dreams? Or the content? Cat dreams could just as easily be recreations of Alice in Wonderland (with a Cheshire Human). We just know they dream, the actual content and details are still a tad beyond our reach.

There are people who study Scientology. Does that mean that it is true, or that people believe that it is true?

Just because someone studies it doesn't mean it is true. No psychic has been able to display any significant power under controlled circumstances. If you can find a well-done study that says otherwise I would be quite happy to look at it.

Lastly; some universities have taken on paranormal courses not because of merit, but because of money. There are enough gullible rubes out there willing to shell out cash in the hopes of becomeing ghost-busters that any sane capitalist would happily sell them a proton pack - or as in this case, paranormal classes.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.